Case Number: KC066686 Hearing Date: June 25, 2014 Dept: J

Re: Brian Powers v. Concentrus, Inc. (KC066686)

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY OR DISMISS PROCEEDINGS

Moving Party: Defendant Concentrus, Inc.

Respondent: No timely opposition filed

POS: Moving OK

In this wrongful termination action, Plaintiff filed his Complaint on 8/15/13, asserting causes of action for:

1. Whistleblower Protection (Labor Code §1102.5(c)
2. Wrongful Termination in violation of public policy
3. Religious discrimination
4. IIED

The Case Management Conference is set for 6/25/14.

Defendant Concentrus, Inc. moves to compel Plaintiff to adjudicate the claims asserted against Defendant in binding arbitration. The motion is made pursuant to CCP §§ 1281.2, 1281.4 and the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2, on the grounds that there is a written agreement between the parties which calls for this dispute to be adjudicated in a binding arbitration.

A written agreement to submit to arbitration an existing controversy or a controversy thereafter arising is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract. (CCP § 1281.) Accordingly, on petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party thereto refuses to arbitrate such controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines that: (a) The right to compel arbitration has been waived by the petitioner; or (b) Grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement; or (c) A party to the arbitration agreement is also a party to a pending court action or special proceeding with a third party, arising out of the same transaction or series of related transactions and there is a possibility of conflicting rulings on a common issue of law or fact. (CCP § 1281; Condee v. Longwood Management Corp. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 215, 219.)

The petition to compel arbitration is a suit in equity for specific performance. (Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Co. v. Hock Investment Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 83, 88.) Nonetheless, CCP §§ 1281.2 and 1290.2 create a summary proceeding for resolving petitions to compel arbitration. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972.) The petition to compel arbitration, consequently, functions as a motion and is to be heard in the manner of a motion, i.e., the facts are to be proven by affidavit or declaration and documentary evidence with oral testimony taken only in the court’s discretion. (CCP § 1290.2; Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413-414.)

Defendants submit evidence that that there is a written agreement between the parties which calls for this matter to be adjudicated in binding arbitration. (Petition, Decl. of Jimmy Huang, Ex. A). Further, Defendant contacted Plaintiff’s counsel to discuss a stipulation to arbitrate this matter, but that Plaintiff eventually refused. (Declaration of Spencer W. Waldron). The arbitration provision is broadly worded, and encompasses all of Plaintiff’s causes of action. Thus, the motion is granted.

The parties are ordered to participate in binding arbitration pursuant to their written agreement. This action is placed on Special Status and is ordered stayed during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings pursuant to CCP § 1281.4. The court will set a status conference regarding the arbitration in approximately six months.